Search

Writing is a critical academic and life skill, but many school-age children struggle with the complexity of written expression. Given the importance of writing, there is a clear need for a systematic approach to identifying and supporting struggling writers, including writers with learning and emotional disabilities. One such approach is known as data-based instruction (DBI). This article presents an overview of DBI and guidance on how educators can use the DBI steps with assessment data to inform their classroom writing instruction. Additional resources are shared to support teachers in using DBI with their struggling writers and writers with learning and emotional disabilities.

In this meta-analysis of single-case designs, the researchers investigated the effects of word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities in Grades 1 through 12, as reported in 20 peer-reviewed articles published between 1975 and 2020. A two-level multilevel model with a robust variance estimation method was implemented to calculate the effect sizes. A significant overall effect of word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities was found, and the results indicate that studies meeting all three quality indicators of implementation fidelity (i.e., adherence, dosage, and regularity) showed greater effects. The average weighted effect sizes of word-problem instruction varied depending on the content and practice standards of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

We examined the classification accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measurement in writing (CBM-W) Picture Word prompts scored for words written (WW), words spelled correctly (WSC), and correct word sequences (CWS). First graders (n = 133) were administered CBM-W prompts and the Test of Written Language-Third Edition (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996). Prompts scored for WSC showed acceptable levels of sensitivity (0.947) and specificity (0.587) with the TOWL-3 Contextual Language. Positive predictive values were low (approximately 0.20 to 0.30), and negative predictive values were high (mostly above 0.95). Overall classification accuracy, represented by the area under curve (AUC), ranged from 0.727 to 0.831. Further research regarding ways to improve classification accuracy of CBM-W and preliminary implications for practice are discussed.

We examined effects of research-based early writing intervention delivered within a data-based instruction (DBI) framework for children with intensive needs. We randomly assigned 46 students with and without disabilities in Grades 1 to 3 within classrooms to either treatment or control. Treatment students received research-based early writing intervention within a DBI framework for 30 min, 3 times per week, for 12 weeks. Control students received business-as-usual writing instruction. We measured writing performance using curriculum-based measures (CBM) and Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III). We found significant treatment effects on CBM outcomes (Hedges g = 0.74 to 1.36). We also found a significant interaction between special education status and condition on the WJ III favoring treatment students with disabilities (Hedges g = 0.45 to 0.70). Findings provide preliminary support for using a combination of research-based intervention and DBI with students with intensive writing needs.

We examined the effects of a professional development (PD) system designed to support teachers' use of data-based instruction (DBI) to improve early writing outcomes for children with intensive needs. The PD system, called "DBI-TLC," provided tools for early writing assessment and intervention, learning modules including face-to-face workshops followed by classroom application, and ongoing coaching to support DBI implementation. Special education teachers in 19 classrooms in 2 Midwestern districts were assigned randomly to receive DBI-TLC or to a business-as-usual control group. All teachers completed pre- and posttests of DBI knowledge and skills and self-efficacy, and DBI-TLC teachers' fidelity to DBI was assessed. Fifty-three students (2 to 3 from each classroom) completed pre- and posttests of early writing using curriculum-based measures (CBM) and the Test of Early Written Language-3 (TEWL-3). DBI-TLC teachers outperformed controls at posttest on DBI knowledge and skills (Hedge's g = 2.88) and reported a more explicit writing instruction orientation compared to controls (g = 1.63). DBI fidelity varied (on average, 84% for assessment, 79% for intervention, and 52% for decision-making). Students whose teachers implemented DBI showed a pattern of stronger early writing performance compared to control students on CBM, with effect sizes of 0.23 to 0.40, but not on the TEWL-3 (0.02 to 0.13). We discuss the promise of DBI-TLC to improve teacher practice and student outcomes, as well as the need to continue to explore ways to support teachers' implementation of DBI with fidelity. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED595445.]

The purpose of this study was to investigate evidence of reliability, criterion validity, and grade-level differences of curriculum-based measures of writing (CBM-W) with 612 students in grades 1-3. Four scoring procedures (words written, words spelled correctly, correct word sequences, and correct minus incorrect word sequences) were used with two CBM-W tasks (picture-word and story prompt) during fall, winter, and spring of one academic year. A subsample of participants (n=244) were given a criterion measure in spring of the academic year. Pearson's r coefficients were calculated to determine evidence of alternate form reliability and criterion validity, and a MANOVA was used to detect significant growth within and across grade levels. Results indicated that scores on both CBM-W tasks had adequate reliability and validity coefficients in grades 2-3 and mixed results in grade 1. Significant growth was detected within and across all grades at each time point on each task. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

We examined the mean effect of teachers' use of data-based individualization (DBI) on the performance of students with intensive learning needs across academic areas and factors influencing the effects of DBI on student achievement. A total of 57 effect sizes from 14 studies were categorized into two comparisons: DBI Only (comparisons between DBI and a business-as-usual control) and DBI Plus (comparisons in which DBI implementers had access to additional information on student performance while they implemented DBI, compared to a control). The mean effect of DBI Only on student performance was g = 0.37; the mean effect of DBI Plus was g = 0.38. Differential effects of DBI were found depending on the nature of CBM tasks, frequency of CBM administration, and type and frequency of supports provided to teachers. Findings support the use of DBI to enhance student outcomes across academic areas.

The purpose of this best evidence synthesis was to identify promising interventions that align with a theoretical model of early writing development, targeting three components of early writing: transcription, text generation, and self-regulation. We determined the extent to which these interventions are effective for children who struggle with early writing skills, by calculating effect sizes for group and single-subject designs, and we examined the overall quality of the research. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Among group design studies, mean effects (Hedge's g) ranged from 0.19 to 1.17 for measures of writing quantity and from 0.17 to 0.85 for measures of writing quality. Percentage of all nonoverlapping data for single-subject designs ranged from 83% to 100% for measures of writing quantity. Interventions with the strongest evidence of effects and highest methodological quality are described in detail. Recommendations for research and practice are provided. [To view the Grantee Submission of this article, see ED581496.]

The purpose of this study was to examine slopes from curriculum-based measures of writing (CBM-W) as indicators of growth in writing. Responses to story prompts administered for 5 min to 89 students in Grades 2-5 were collected across 12 weeks and scored for correct word sequences (CWS) and correct minus incorrect sequences (CIWS). Linear mixed modeling revealed that, for students in Grades 2-3, a linear model with random effects on both intercept and slope fit the data best. For students in Grades 4-5, growth trends varied depending on number of weeks and scoring procedure used. The time point at which slopes were significantly different from zero varied by scoring procedure and grade. Gender was related to intercept and slope for CWS and CIWS in Grades 2-3 and to intercept and linear slope for CWS and CIWS in Grades 4-5. Findings suggest that CBM-W may be appropriate for monitoring student progress, and that gender should be considered in data-based decision making.

Teachers are often asked to implement research-based instructional programs with fidelity and to ensure that all students reach high academic standards. These requests sometimes conflict when teachers find that not all their students are benefiting from the research-backed programs. In this article, we suggest that researchers and teachers can work together to balance the importance of both program fidelity and instructional flexibility, based on findings from recent research on Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) for Reading in Grades 2-6. We detail how teachers can learn to implement research-based practices with fidelity, as well as customize these practices to fit their own purposes. We end with general recommendations for customizing research-based practices.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) for beginning writers might be used within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. First, we describe CBM, and review research on CBM for beginning writers. Next, we discuss how CBM for beginning writers might fit within RTI, including use for universal screening and progress monitoring to identify students in need of more intensive, individualized intervention. We highlight areas needing further research, and end with a case example to illustrate how educators might use CBM within RTI to address the needs of struggling beginning writers. (Contains 2 figures.)

This study examined the quality of the research base related to strategy instruction priming the underlying mathematical problem structure for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for mathematics difficulties. We evaluated the quality of methodological rigor of 18 group research studies using the criteria proposed by Gersten et al. and 10 single case design (SCD) research studies using criteria suggested by Horner et al. and the What Works Clearinghouse. Results indicated that 14 group design studies met the criteria for high-quality or acceptable research, whereas SCD studies did not meet the standards for an evidence-based practice. Based on these findings, strategy instruction priming the mathematics problem structure is considered an evidence-based practice using only group design methodological criteria. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]